Advised to drive dangerously (in writing) by the Police.

[wc98]

Caddyshack said:

It is clear that the Op has interpreted the contents of the letter as "drive dangerously and ignore the highway code" but the letter would not actually use those words at all and that is why he has gone quiet as the forum he thought would be outraged has proven otherwise.

I suspect that the letter said something along the lines of "the turn left signal can be ignored if the road ahead is clear and you are taking the 2nd left exit"...or something to that effect etc...


I do not fully understand what the OP means of followed the road down a dead end....I expect there was some hand waving and the unmarked police car suggested a turn off to discuss and the OP then found out they were the Rozzers?

I also suspect that he had been very angry and hence made a formal complaint.

i suspect the person that cut him up caused him to miss his exit and he ended up taking the next one instead of going around again. i could be wrong though. anyone that doesn't like having to use psychic powers while negotiating roundabouts should avoid scottish new towns at all costs (to be fair they are best avoided anyway) , they really are a joke when it comes to signage. they tend to run smoother when the painted arrows have worn off and everyone reverts to common sense.

[Heidfirst]

iirc unless there is writing beneath e.g. "turn left/right","ahead only" then lane arrows on the road are advisory only?

[Mandat]

JNW1 said:

To be fair to surveyor I'd have thought the arrow in the right-hand lane should point straight ahead given there's no right-turn off the roundabout! So left lane to take either of the first two exits or go straight on, right lane to go straight on only?

It does make sense when you are a local, but I can see how it could be confusing to someone not familiar with the area.

The reality of the junction is that:

Left is to Rossington West.

Straight ahead is to iPort.

Right is to Doncaster & M18.

[Jediworrier]

What a lot of questions!

I'll do my best...

Paintman - custard test request. I'm aware of this as have been asked over 10yrs back to prove my car on another site. I didn't then and feel no need now to prove I'm not a liar, sorry.


Johnny the boy- what does the number of exits have to do with the huge left arrow in the lane?


Davek - I was followed to a cafe down a dead end before i was yelled at out tthe window.


JNW1- surely advising me to ignore the markings and drive in the same manner of the officer that, according to them nearly caused an accident due to me following the arrows, equates to suggesting I ignore the highway code and drive dangerously?

48K - You keep your money

Funky squirrel- there is an exit to the left - the arrow points to it.

Others.. Biased view...angry.. other reasons for being pulled over... keeping quiet due to being embarrased that you're not all outraged etc .. some are quite frankly bizarre!

The long and short of it is I would like toknow why have i been advised to deliberately ignore the huge markings on the road and drive in a manner that is likely to cause an accident?

Also, the posters that suggest the lane is for anything other than left turns could you please offer me some guidance as to when it is acceptable to ignore highway markings and wing it? What other parts of the highway code can be ignored?

[Heidfirst]

Jediworrier said:

Also, the posters that suggest the lane is for anything other than left turns could you please offer me some guidance as to when it is acceptable to ignore highway markings and wing it? What other parts of the highway code can be ignored?

when they aren't backed up by law? The highway code is not law.

[Jediworrier]

Heidfirst said:

when they aren't backed up by law? The highway code is not law.

So there is no need to abide by the highway code?

[Fastdruid]

Jediworrier said:

Heidfirst said:

when they aren't backed up by law? The highway code is not law.

So there is no need to abide by the highway code?

Only when it says "MUST" or "MUST NOT", the rest...I shall quote:

gov.uk said:

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see The road user and the law) to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

[Riley Blue]

Jediworrier said:

Heidfirst said:

when they aren't backed up by law? The highway code is not law.

So there is no need to abide by the highway code?

Some of the advice contained in the Highway Code is mandatory, some is advisory. Not being aware of the difference seems to be the reason for your initial belief that you were advised to drive dangerously when it was merely to use your common sense in relation to advisory guidance in the HC.

[anonymous-user]

—-
The long and short of it is I would like toknow why have i been advised to deliberately ignore the huge markings on the road and drive in a manner that is likely to cause an accident?
—-

Ask the people who sent you the letter then.

Since we still have no clear explanation of exactly what happened and no sight of the letter it’s impossible to form an opinion as to the validity of the advice you’ve been given.

[davek_964]

Jediworrier said:

Davek - I was followed to a cafe down a dead end before i was yelled at out tthe window.

Yes, but that doesn't really answer the question does it? Apparently, you were innocently driving in the correct lane around a roundabout when another car "dangerously" crossed chevrons because they were in the wrong lane for the exit they needed.

And yet - despite the fault apparently being with the other car - the occupiers felt the need to follow you and have a go at you for "cutting them up". I think it's rather likely you've left a few details out of why they felt the need to do that.

[Bill]

Still no Google map link or letter...

It makes me wonder how.much you're over egging the "omg, police told me to drive dangerously" element.

[Triumph Man]

h0b0 said:

Triumph Man said:

h0b0 said:

In 2004 I was instructed to drive while drunk by a police officer in the UK. He followed me as I drove the car home.

What are the circumstances surrounding that?

My girlfriend and I were going from Sale into Manchester to have a night out. She had stupid shoes on so I drove sober to the tram station. On returning I checked the car and we walked home. (Her now bare foot.) 2 hours later I got a call to say my car was broken into so I headed back to the station. I met the police and found the window smashed but nothing taken. I told the officer there was nothing I could do right now so I will return when it was legal for me to drive. He wasn’t happy with that so I told him to drive me home.


That’s when he came up with the master plan. “You look and are acting sober. I’d have no reason to suspect you of drinking”

“You mean apart from me telling you?”

“Get in your car and I will follow you home”

It was only a 200 yard drive but that doesn’t make it any less dodgy.

Gosh I'd be worried it was a trap!

[robinessex]

Until we see the Google map junction, it's difficult for us to make a judgement

[paintman]

Jediworrier said:

What a lot of questions!

I'll do my best...

Paintman - custard test request. I'm aware of this as have been asked over 10yrs back to prove my car on another site. I didn't then and feel no need now to prove I'm not a liar, sorry.


Johnny the boy- what does the number of exits have to do with the huge left arrow in the lane?


Davek - I was followed to a cafe down a dead end before i was yelled at out tthe window.


JNW1- surely advising me to ignore the markings and drive in the same manner of the officer that, according to them nearly caused an accident due to me following the arrows, equates to suggesting I ignore the highway code and drive dangerously?

48K - You keep your money

Funky squirrel- there is an exit to the left - the arrow points to it.

Others.. Biased view...angry.. other reasons for being pulled over... keeping quiet due to being embarrased that you're not all outraged etc .. some are quite frankly bizarre!

The long and short of it is I would like toknow why have i been advised to deliberately ignore the huge markings on the road and drive in a manner that is likely to cause an accident?

Also, the posters that suggest the lane is for anything other than left turns could you please offer me some guidance as to when it is acceptable to ignore highway markings and wing it? What other parts of the highway code can be ignored?

There we go.
Incident may or may not have happened and may or may not have happened in the way the OP is alleging.
The letter clearly doesn't exist in the format the OP is alleging as it would be a simple matter to post a redacted copy.
I'm inclined to think the OP has tried to make a complaint, been given a polite version of the Arkell/Presdram reply, doesn't like it & came on here expecting outrage from PH posters. With the letter it may have happened, but without the evidence it's not quite gone the way they expected

[Shuvi McTupya]

Triumph Man said:

Gosh I'd be worried it was a trap!

There was a time i wouldn't have thought it was a trap but these days I would definitely think twice if a policeman gave me that advice.

Lets face it, if anything happened , there is no way the policeman would stand in court and tell the judge that he gave you permission to drive after you admitted being drunk..

[poo at Paul's]

Is OP "Mr Logic" from Viz?

[JNW1]

Jediworrier said:

JNW1- surely advising me to ignore the markings and drive in the same manner of the officer that, according to them nearly caused an accident due to me following the arrows, equates to suggesting I ignore the highway code and drive dangerously?

I think part of the problem here is it's not entirely clear what's passed between you and the police. However, from your comment above one thing that is pretty clear is they haven't advised you to drive dangerously in writing, that's just an interpretation you've placed on whatever they said. Now I daresay in your mind that interpretation is entirely justified but in my book it's not the same thing as actually being advised to drive dangerously; the police would just never do that!

[Google [bot]]

A disguised picture of the letter would help but I sort of understand the reluctance to post that. I don’t understand the reluctance to post a streetview/map. The only reason for that is wanting to hear the response he’s looking for based on insufficient info.

OP you must have seen enough threads to know that feeding drips of information is not going to get you good responses? It makes folk think you’re hiding something, which you are.

[Marcellus]

Do we actually know where this incident is alleged to have taken place yet?

OP post up a google link to the junction and your version of what happened!

My guess from what you've cryptically said is;
- you were in right hand lane on approach and went straight ahead.
- another car was in the left hand lane and also went straight ahead.
- 2 into 1 doesn't go
- other car was possibly policeman.
- words were exchanged.
- other driver said that from left hand lane they could turn left, go straight ahead or turn right.
- you're say you have this in writing
- you said there's a left turn painted on road so no you can't and if you did it's dangerous driving.

If the above is a correct guess then I suspect the correct answer is that technically/legally from the left hand land of a roundabout you can use any exit, however in practice drivers use left lane for any exit before/including straight over, the right hand lane for those from straight over to back on yourself and that the left arrow does not mean "you can only take 1st exit".

[Fastpedeller]

Did this happen on part of the Norwich bypass (NDR)?
Lots of controversy over road markings on this new section of road.